Why aren't abusive priests excommunicated?

[yinekka]

I visit another discussion board and someone there asked, in the light of the excommunication of Call to Action in one diocese, why abusive priests aren’t excommunicated. I couldn’t answer the question. Can anyone here help me?

 

[Lorik]

The only reason for excommunication is to shock someone into repenting. If they are sorry there is no reason for it. It is not to be used as a weapon but a last resort to convince the person that they are wrong and must seek to be forgiven.

 

[puzzleannie]

abusive priests are subject to canon law which applies to them, including if and when appropriate laicization and excommunication. Like all legal processes there is a right way to do it. it also depends on the type of abuse, there are canonical crimes a priest can commit, such as those involving abuse of the sacrament of reconciliation, which result in automatic excommunication which can be lifted only by the Pope.

 

[marci]

I visit another discussion board and someone there asked, in the light of the excommunication of Call to Action in one diocese, why abusive priests aren’t excommunicated. I couldn’t answer the question. Can anyone here help me?

It is my understanding that if one commits a sin which carries with it excommunication, the excommunication doesn’t have to be publicly issued by hierarchy, ie priest, bishop, pope, in order to take affect.

Once the act or sin is commited the excommunication is automatic if the person has full knowledge that the act they have commited carries with it excommunication.

The excommunication would then be lifted when the person goes to confession.

 

[rr1213]

Instead of soft-pedalling the problem, the Church should turn such priests over to the civil magistrate and, if convicted, they should be sent to jail to rot for life.

 

[noma]

I think that the problem is not the Roman Church actively trying to cover anything up.

I think that the real problem for why the Roman Church has failed to deal properly with this problem (though excommunication would not qualify as proper) is because it has a false belief in its own infallibility.

The Roman Church has very little authority about anything anymore, and its believing that it does causes these problems of arrogance.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I visit another discussion board and someone there asked, in the light of the excommunication of Call to Action in one diocese, why abusive priests aren’t excommunicated. I couldn’t answer the question. Can anyone here help me?

Because the mere (mere!) commission of mortal sin is not in itself grounds for excommunication. (Thanks be to God!)

tee
A sinner

 

[tee_eff_em]

It is my understanding that if one commits a sin which carries with it excommunication, the excommunication doesn’t have to be publicly issued by hierarchy, ie priest, bishop, pope, in order to take affect.

You misunderstand. While some offenses *do *carry an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty, some others (ferendae sententia) are not binding until the penalty is imposed.

tee

 

[marci]

You misunderstand. While some offenses *do *carry an automatic (latae sententiae) penalty, some others (ferendae sententia) are not binding until the penalty is imposed.

tee

Thanks tee.

I learn something new everyday on the forums.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Instead of soft-pedalling the problem, the Church should turn such priests over to the civil magistrate and, if convicted, they should be sent to jail to rot for life.

Two different things. One is civil law, as you mentioned; the other is church law. Excommunication is serious because of eternal cosequences, i.e. rotting for eternity.

And the Church is required to turn over abusers. This isn’t just about priests, the abuser can be a youth leader, teacher, vounteer in a church or school activity. There isn’t a greater prevelance of priests being abusers.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I think that the problem is not the Roman Church actively trying to cover anything up.

I think that the real problem for why the Roman Church has failed to deal properly with this problem (though excommunication would not qualify as proper) is because it has a false belief in its own infallibility.

The Roman Church has very little authority about anything anymore, and its believing that it does causes these problems of arrogance.

What do you mean by “false belief in its own infallibility”?
Also, what have you observed that demonstrates a belief that we have more authority than we have. The magisterium knows the limits of it’s authority. I know the limits of it’s authority so I don’t really know what you mean. Could you clarify?

 

[noma]

What do you mean by “false belief in its own infallibility”?
Also, what have you observed that demonstrates a belief that we have more authority than we have. The magisterium knows the limits of it’s authority. I know the limits of it’s authority so I don’t really know what you mean. Could you clarify?

That the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium is infallible. That ex cathedra (and even some non-ex cathedra) statements of the pope are infallible.

I disagree with the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.
I disagree a lot with the pope.

I think that many of the supposedly infallible positions from the magisterium, proffered by the Roman Church, are false, and what is worse, unloving.

 

[Verita]

That the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium is infallible. That ex cathedra (and even some non-ex cathedra) statements of the pope are infallible.

I disagree with the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.
I disagree a lot with the pope.

I think that many of the supposedly infallible positions from the magisterium, proffered by the Roman Church, are false, and what is worse, unloving.

So, because you disagree with them, they’re wrong. The promises of Jesus don’t matter, of course.

 

[noma]

So, because you disagree with them, they’re wrong. The promises of Jesus don’t matter, of course.

I think Jesus has made no promise to the popes, anymore than he has made to all Christians who follow His will.

 

[SemperUbiSubUbi]

I think Jesus has made no promise to the popes, anymore than he has made to all Christians who follow His will.

Though this isn’t really the place for it, I think the Gospel of Matthew would have something to say about that. He made promises, concrete promises to Peter, to His Apostles, and to the Church built upon them. To assume that YOU must be right, in the face of 2000 years of constant teaching, sounds a bit more like the arrogant belief in infallibility that you accuse the church of than what the Church actually believes. Jesus made no guarantees that you, noma, 2000 years after His birth, would have the complete guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the Gates of Hell would not stand against you. He did to His Church.

 

[puzzleannie]

It is my understanding that if one commits a sin which carries with it excommunication, the excommunication doesn’t have to be publicly issued by hierarchy, ie priest, bishop, pope, in order to take affect.
.

I am speaking here specifically of canon law as it applies to priests and those specific offenses which for them carry the penalty of excommunicatoin.

 

[puzzleannie]

Instead of soft-pedalling the problem, the Church should turn such priests over to the civil magistrate and, if convicted, they should be sent to jail to rot for life.

by far the greater majority of priests whose offenses have been the subject of civil lawsuits and settlements in the news recently were reported to the civil authority, which declined to prosecute either because of lack of evidence, expiration of statute of limitations, or accusations that at the time the alleged offense occurred were not specifically forbidden by any statue.

 

[rr1213]

Though this isn’t really the place for it, I think the Gospel of Matthew would have something to say about that. He made promises, concrete promises to Peter, to His Apostles, and to the Church built upon them. To assume that YOU must be right, in the face of 2000 years of constant teaching, sounds a bit more like the arrogant belief in infallibility that you accuse the church of than what the Church actually believes. Jesus made no guarantees that you, noma, 2000 years after His birth, would have the complete guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the Gates of Hell would not stand against you. He did to His Church.

I wouldn’t personalize this. Noma does not stand alone in her beliefs on this matter, as evidenced by the witnesses of the Protestant and Orthodox Churches. It is not quite as simple an issue as you have framed it.

 

[noma]

Though this isn’t really the place for it, I think the Gospel of Matthew would have something to say about that. He made promises, concrete promises to Peter, to His Apostles, and to the Church built upon them. To assume that YOU must be right, in the face of 2000 years of constant teaching, sounds a bit more like the arrogant belief in infallibility that you accuse the church of than what the Church actually believes. Jesus made no guarantees that you, noma, 2000 years after His birth, would have the complete guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the Gates of Hell would not stand against you. He did to His Church.

I do not believe that the Roman Church is exclusively Christ’s Church. Rather, I think Christ’s Church includes some people in the Roman Church.

So yes, my beliefs fly in the face of 2000 years of teachings of the Roman Church, and over 2500 years of Hindu teachings, and many other ancient teachings that do not hold a monopoly on truth. Truth is found from Christ through his Scriptures, through nature, and through reason. Not through a man in a hat.

Edited to add: By the way… this is important to the thread in that one answer to why abusive priests aren’t excommunicated might be because the Roman Church does not have the power to excommunicate. This might also be the reason Lutherans and others are not truly excommunicated.

 

[SemperUbiSubUbi]

I do not believe that the Roman Church is exclusively Christ’s Church. Rather, I think Christ’s Church includes some people in the Roman Church.

So yes, my beliefs fly in the face of 2000 years of teachings of the Roman Church, and over 2500 years of Hindu teachings, and many other ancient teachings that do not hold a monopoly on truth. Truth is found from Christ through his Scriptures, through nature, and through reason. Not through a man in a hat.

Edited to add: By the way… this is important to the thread in that one answer to why abusive priests aren’t excommunicated might be because the Roman Church does not have the power to excommunicate. This might also be the reason Lutherans and others are not truly excommunicated.

So…this ephemeral Church of Christ you believe in…do all its members share in the same beliefs? As Jesus prayed that we would be one with each other? As Paul commanded us to avoid those who sowed dissention? As the Church would have the Holy Spirit to lead it into ALL truth? Because if not…if it is teaching different things through different people, these people aren’t being lead by that Spirit of Truth.

I agree with you that all Truth is in Christ, who IS the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. I also believe, as the Bible teaches, that the Church is guided into truth by the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete Jesus promised. But truth comes to us from Christ, through the CHURCH, in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guided the leaders of the early Church to write down the letters and Gospels that have become the New Testament. Furthermore, the Bible says that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth! I repeat: the Church, wherever it is, whomever it resides in, cannot teach error, because the Holy Spirit cannot teach error. If someone teaches error, he is doing so through means other than inspiration by the Holy Spirit, because God is Truth, and cannot contradict Himself.